100% PROOF The Iraq War Was A Lie- Declassified Rumsfeld Memos

reply to post by kloejen
How can someone live with their self or sleep at night knowing you are such a low life piece of crap.

I don't know he must work for the Devil, Satan, the biggest lier.

reply to post by eLPresidente


No they'll still be blind... Just like Repubs were blind to bush's actions.

its come full circle.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Check out Rachael Maddow Monday show.

It's time for a war crimes trial on Bush's ass.

reply to post by TrueAmerican

[snip]

[snip]

reply to post by TrueAmerican


"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." --Donald Rumsfeld

Don't know about you, but when I heard him say that I had all the proof I needed to know that it was a farce.

Orchestrated war, taking advantage of the fears and will of the people and government to engage in a war in Iraq, not just for the oil, but also there was a motive in the white house because they believed that the first Gulf war was an unfinished job, and the plot to kill George Bush 1 was uncovered and tied to Saddam's regime, there was a personal motive for Bush 2.

Shame is, it was the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time and for all of the wrong reasons.

It has ultimately undermined our credibility and severely compromised our national security. Not only that there were unspeakable atrocities that removed us from any appearance of "morality"... And we have left there with what?


Etc... on and on.

[snip]

[snip]

A million people dead because of lies, and no one is outraged. We really are a heartless species.

reply to post by neo96

TextThere were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all. The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported. The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal -- most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War. In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site. Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city.

Sounds like the equivalent of meth labs we have brewing here in the mid west

Seriously though, even Bushes cabinet admitted that the whole WMD thing turned out to be bunk after all due to bad intel in the CIA. It turned in to a blame game after that with the usual "plausible deniability" we often see from these criminals. It is also odd these documents were not used to defend the administration's position on the war either for damage control purposes? I guess anyone could start up a do it yourself WMD lab but it does not mean the government or Saddam was behind it. Being there was insurgent brewing up this stuff they could very well have came in to the country and put together these labs. Anyone can get "chemicals" it does not mean it amounts to a hill of beans.

Chemical labs are not WMD's , you can create WMD's using them it does not mean it was done with success. NOT WMD's.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Hubris: Selling the Iraq War.

An ironic title for a documentary considering MSNBC and virtually every other network and media outlet called loudly for war and did not challenge it.

Donald Rumsfeld...the man who even President Nixon called a ruthless little b***ard.

reply to post by DarthFazer


So its Bush's and Rumsfelds fault for the great lie of Saddam, during the "war" Saddam/Russians moved WMDS to Syria as it was reported at the time.

Current events there were reports of Syria getting ready to use WMDS the only way to be sure what he had was what happened.

If world leaders are known to be liars why is it only the west that always get vilified?

Saddam is to blame was much as anyone.

reply to post by neo96

So its Bush's and Rumsfelds fault for the great lie of Saddam, during the "war" Saddam/Russians moved WMDS to Syria as it was reported at the time.

So why didn't we invade Syria next then?

It's conclusively proven that Iraq was complete lies. Many people became rich off the back of that war. It was complete and utter nonsense.

Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade

A good book....very eye-opening. No mention of WMDs being moved to Syria in it though....

reply to post by neo96


Dude i agree with you on WMDs, there where WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion, they might not have been nukes but he did have some WMD capability the problem was the classic Neocon tactic of exaggeration they marketed it in a very bad way.

Saddam could have just done what the UN asked, let the inspectors have a peek and we would probably not even be talking about this he was just as much to blame as Bush and co.

reply to post by neo96

If world leaders are known to be liars why is it only the west that always get vilified?

Maybe because it's the West that has committed so many crimes and has propped up and still props up oppressive or dictatorial regimes around the world?

Maybe because the West is so hypocritical in everything it does?

reply to post by Kram09

It's conclusively proven that Iraq was complete lies. Many people became rich off the back of that war. It was complete and utter nonsense.

No it wasn't

www.wired.com...

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by neo96

 

If world leaders are known to be liars why is it only the west that always get vilified?

Maybe because it's the West that has committed so many crimes and has propped up and still props up oppressive or dictatorial regimes around the world?

Paid any attention to what was going on in Iraq long before the Us ever showed up, just like every other middle eastern country.

I know people love to make them out as some sort of utopia but they are not and never have been,

reply to post by neo96


Okay fair enough.

So there were some WMDs, but as they were mostly some rusted decrepit shells, they threat they posed to the United States was negligible and nothing like what we were led to believe by the Bush administration.

From the article:

A small group — mostly of the political right — has long maintained that there was more evidence of a major and modern WMD program than the American people were led to believe. A few Congressmen and Senators gravitated to the idea, but it was largely dismissed as conspiratorial hooey.

As the other poster pointed out they exaggerated wildly. But yes okay, some WMDs were found.

reply to post by neo96

Paid any attention to what was going on in Iraq long before the Us ever showed up, just like every other middle eastern country. I know people love to make them out as some sort of utopia but they are not and never have been,

Yes I've paid attention.

It's the same story. Just it was Britain mainly poking it's nose in. A utopia? The Middle East? I don't think so...

reply to post by Kram09


I agree they did exaggerate wildy as Saddam if he came clean there would have been no invasion.

The only thing I fault the Bush admin for they should have went straight to the source-Saudi Arabia.